9 Sept 2016

Spanish economic recovery through savaging workers’ living standards

James Lerner

Even as months of manoeuvres aimed at installing a new government in Spain grind on, the country’s media and political parties have enshrined as undisputed truth the country’s emergence, safe and sound, from the economic downturn.
According to official accounts, the post-2008 recession is nothing more than a bad memory. The fact that millions have been plunged into poverty is of little concern for the ruling elite and upper middle class layers. Throughout the crisis their wealth has soared as the result of a sustained, European Union-backed offensive against Spanish workers to depress wages, worsen working conditions and extract record profits.
Spain is now among the top 10 countries with more than 1,000 people classified as super-rich. The gap between the highest and the lowest incomes has risen to between 40 and 50 percent, making Spain the advanced capitalist country where inequality has grown most sharply since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008.
The official story of the recovery begins with the headline figures:
Since the mild upturn in growth began in 2014, economic growth has been positive for 12 consecutive quarters, and the country’s budget deficits are now being financed on the cheap, with sovereign bonds yielding around 1 percent. Other favourable, conjunctural factors include the global fall in oil prices and negative interest rates, which have lowered mortgage payments.
Despite the euphoria over these figures, this cycle of mild economic growth is clearly flattening out and even starting to slip downwards as the year-on-year rate of growth in the second quarter fell to 3.2 percent, down from 3.4 percent in the first quarter. The 1.6 million jobs created so far fall well short of compensating for the 3 million jobs lost in the crisis up to 2013. The very slight recent uptick of wages in no way compensates for the 12 percent loss in household income.
The statistics relating to the labour market paint a clear picture, revealing that successive labour reforms of Socialist Party (PSOE) and Popular Party (PP) governments, combined with years of huge unemployment and unremitting austerity, have created a massive pool of cheap labour. These are “disposable” workers that employers can hire and fire at will.
Official figures show that wages in Spain have remained flat for no less than four years, at an average of €1,638 a month. In the worst paid sectors—the hotel and restaurant trade and retail industry, which account for a large majority of the new jobs—wages have declined. It is no surprise then that clothing retailer Amancio Ortega is the richest man in Europe and the wealthiest retailer in the world, with a net worth of $79.5 billion. Several billionaires have made their fortunes from these sectors.
The scale of the cut in workers’ income is enormous. The UGT trade union issued a report indicating that unpaid overtime of Spanish workers between 2010 and 2015 amounted to €12.5 billion in lost wages, and a loss of €3.5 billion for Spain’s social security system. The report estimated that unpaid overtime increased by a third in that period.
Spain leads Europe in the use of temporary contracts for hiring—4.6 million in 2015. No less than 95 percent of the contracts signed in July of this year were temporary. In 2015, temporary contracts accounted for 82.6 percent of applications for unemployment benefits. The official Economic and Social Council (CES) identified a pool of 648,400 people who rotate back and forth between a job and unemployment benefits during the year.
Temporary contracts are also becoming shorter and shorter. Currently, the average duration is 51 days, but the number of “ultra-short” contracts of less than one week is growing. That the ruling elite is determined these conditions are here to stay was made clear by Juan Rosell, the head of Spain’s main business association, who publicly stated recently, “A permanent and secure employment contract is a nineteenth-century concept.”
Young people make up a large proportion of the cheap pool of temporary and part-time workers. An extraordinary 92.3 percent of employed workers under the age of 30 have temporary contracts. Nearly 80 percent of youth temporary work is involuntary—that is, they are forced to accept temporary or part-time work when they would prefer to work full-time with a permanent contract.
This is not to mention that roughly half of Spain’s youth population remains unemployed.
The near universality of precarious, insecure working conditions among young people makes it nearly impossible for them to set up their own household, take out a loan or undertake other commitments.
Employers fully exploit workers’ fear of losing their jobs, in a situation where the unemployment rate is still above 20 percent and unemployment benefits and other forms of assistance have been slashed to the bone.
Figures rarely noted in the media include: 12 million people (out of 46.8 million) in Spain are at risk of poverty, 700,000 households have no income and 5 million people are unemployed. Unemployment increased by 14,435 people in August of this year, and the social security system lost 144,997 contributors.
In their outrage and search for a way to oppose this state of affairs, young workers have been led into a blind alley. The “indignados” (angry ones) movement which arose in 2011 won support as an initial, angry response to the hardship faced by working and middle class youth intensified by the austerity measures imposed by the PSOE government. But this movement could never challenge the capitalist profit system and its political parties because it was led by pseudo-left forces opposed to any such struggle. Their “no politics” demands sought to block the development of an independent programme, perspective and political leadership in opposition to capitalism.
The main leaders and spokespersons of the movement then made careers out of these protests, emerging as the new leaders of the pseudo-left parties and “social movements” that subsequently created Podemos in 2014. Since then, Podemos has suppressed the nascent rebellion among young people, providing an invaluable service to the ruling class in its pursuit of social counterrevolution.
The number of demonstrations, rallies and other spontaneous actions has plummeted since Podemos appeared on the scene. It has betrayed any struggle against deteriorating conditions and declared its support for the European Union, NATO and austerity, while seeking to project itself as a “progressive” face for Spanish capitalism. While Podemos continues to jockey for power, young people face either a bleak future of living in their parents’ home as “expendable” members of the cheap labour pool or the prospect of emigrating in a desperate search for work.

South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping bankruptcy has global impact

Ben McGrath

South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping is facing major restructuring after filing for bankruptcy protection last week. A Seoul court placed the world’s seventh largest cargo transportation line under court receivership on September 1, leading to worldwide disruptions at ports and terminals. The country’s shipping lines and shipbuilders have been struggling in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the drop in global trade.
On Tuesday, Hanjin announced it was able to secure 100 billion won (US$90.6 million) to begin unloading dozens of vessels around the world. Forty billion won will come from Hanjun chairman Cho Yang-ho’s personal wealth while 60 billion won will come from loans, using stakes in terminals such as that at Long Beach, California as collateral.
According to the company, 73 out of 141 ships had been left stranded at sea, unable to dock or offload their cargo amid fears the company would be unable to pay dock and port workers. “Hanjin called us and said, ‘We’re going bankrupt and we can’t pay any bills—so don’t bother asking,’” stated J. Kip Louttit, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California, last week.
The injection of funds, however, will do little to help the company in the long run. At the end of June, Hanjin faced debt worth 6 trillion won (US$5.46 billion), which included operating losses of 228.9 billion won (US$208.6 million) in the second quarter of this year. The state-run Korea Development Bank (KDB), one of the company’s major creditors, rejected a company plan to raise 500 billion won (US$446 million), leading the company to seek court-led restructuring. Creditors in Singapore also seized one of the company’s vessels, the Hanjin Rome, on August 30, which also prompted the bankruptcy decision as Hanjin sought to protect its fleet.
South Korea’s export-driven economy already struggles with job losses at its shipbuilders, similarly undergoing restructuring, and high youth unemployment. “We decided quickly to begin court receivership for Hanjin Shipping, the country’s leading shipper and the world’s major container shipping line, given its presence in the local shipping industry and its impact on the economy as a whole,” said the Seoul Central District Court last week.
The bankruptcy has had a “ripple effect” on the global economy. Overall, there was a reported $14 billion worth of cargo on the stranded ships. Hanjin, for example, handles 20 percent and 40 percent of cargo for LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics respectively. The US Department of Agriculture also stated that Hanjin’s bankruptcy would cause shipping difficulties for the next two to three months.
Jonathon Gold, the vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, stated last week: “Retailers’ main concern is that there is millions of dollars’ worth of merchandise that needs to be on store shelves that could be impacted by this.”
“It is understandable that port terminal operators, railroads, trucking companies and others don’t want to do work for Hanjin if they are concerned they won’t get paid,” Gold continued. “However, we need all parties to work together to find solutions to move this cargo so it does not have a broader impact on the economy.”
Ports around the world have refused to accept Hanjin ships, including at Shanghai, China, Valenica, Spain, and at Long Beach in Southern California. The Port of Oakland continued unloading Hanjin ships, but refused to load US exports without payment first. Hanjin, which was also granted temporary bankruptcy protection in a United States court, handles about 8 percent of trans-Pacific US cargo, which normally includes auto parts, furniture, and pulp and paper products.
Hanjin Shipping has been struggling for several years. The company is part of the Hanjin Group, a chaebol (family-owned conglomerate) that also owns Korean Air. The airline purchased a 15.4 percent share in the shipping company for 250 billion won in 2013, following two years of consecutive losses. Korean Air purchased another 17.8 percent share in Hanjin the following year for 400 billion won. Both purchases were emergency measures to help stabilize the company.
In general, shipping companies continued to purchase vessels on the expectation that China’s economy would remain strong after 2008. However, the opposite occurred. “Well, China stumbled and global trade projections went nearly flat,” said Jock O’Connell, a trade adviser at Beacon Economics in Los Angeles. “All these shipping lines are stuck with large vessels and overcapacity.”
The impact on workers in South Korea and internationally was felt immediately. According to the union representing Hanjin workers, more than 1,000 crewmembers on the company’s ships were left at sea. As many as 10,000 jobs in the industry could be lost during restructuring, according to theKorea Times. Longshoremen at ports were unable to work. “The gates have been shut. Nobody is coming to work,” said Mark Jurisic, a business agent with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13 at the Port of Long Beach. “Today we would have had 200 to 300 employees here.”
However, the labor unions in South Korea have backed the restructuring plans. The head of Hanjin Shipping’s labor union, Lee Yo-han, claimed “The union will actively respond to prevent difficulties in sailors lives” while also protecting jobs and improving working conditions.
However, instead of appealing to workers, especially those in the related shipbuilding industry who are also facing mass job losses, Hanjin’s union led demonstrations in Busan, South Korea’s second largest city, calling on the government and courts to intervene and protect the company. Hanjin handles 10 percent of the shipping through Busan.
The union is maneuvering workers into a dead end. Attempts to pressure political leaders or the courts are meant to prevent the independent movement of the South Korean working class. Hanjin Group, which controls Hanjin Shipping, is the eleventh largest chaebol in South Korea and the country’s largest shipping company. Chaebols and their leading officials regularly receive government protection from poor business decisions and criminal behavior.
South Korea’s shipbuilders, including industry leaders Hyundai Heavy, Samsung and Daewoo, are similarly undergoing restructuring, with workers facing the prospect of tens of thousands of job losses. The turmoil and complete lack of planning at all of these companies, coupled with their international impact, make clear the necessity for socialist control and reorganization of the economy.

German army steps up military intervention in Middle East

Johannes Stern

According to media reports, the German army is to massively expand its presence at the Incirlik air base in southeastern Turkey. The defence ministry under Ursula Von der Leyen has announced investments totalling €58 million.
According to Spiegel Online, €26 million is to be used to construct an airstrip for the Tornados stationed there and permanent accommodation for the troops. For an additional €30 million, the army will establish a mobile command centre for the deployment of the air force. For this, the building of a foundation will be necessary, which costs an additional €2 million.
The NATO Incirlik airbase is the main location from where the US-led air war in Syria and Iraq is waged, in which the German army has participated since last year with fighter jets, a warship, refuelling aircraft, satellite technology and up to 1,200 troops. The German Tornado pilots have flown approximately 500 reconnaissance missions since then.
The expansion of the airbase is part of a major intensification of German military offensives in the Middle East. Last Sunday, Germany sent a major shipment of weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga in northern Iraq. According to the German army, it consisted of two Dingo I armoured vehicles, 1,500 G-36 machine guns, 2 million rounds of munitions and 100 Milan anti-tank rockets.
A recent report on the German navy’s official web site stated that the frigate Augsburg was “well prepared and with good weather … on its way to the Counter Daesh II mission.” Between December 2015 and March 2016, the German warship accompanied the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in an intervention allegedly aimed at ISIS in the Persian Gulf.
According to Bild am Sonntag, a further German contingent with AWACS reconnaissance aircraft will begin operating over Syria around the end of October. The mission was already agreed upon at NATO’s summit in Warsaw at the beginning of July. The German soldiers will also be stationed in Turkey.
With the sending of additional German troops and the extra investment in Incirlik, a relaxation in tensions between Berlin and Ankara appears to be taking place. Relations had reached a low-point in the wake of the attempted coup in July against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which was at least tacitly backed by sections of the ruling elite in the United States and Germany.
Prior to that, German-Turkish relations were badly damaged by the passage in June of a resolution in the German parliament (Bundestag) describing the murder of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as “genocide.” Erdogan warned at the time that the initiative “could lead to a deterioration in diplomatic, economic, political and military relations between the two countries,” and prohibited Bundestag representatives from visiting the German troops stationed at Incirlik.
However, following the Turkish incursion to northern Syria and the concurrent visit of US Vice President Joseph Biden to Ankara at the latest, the German government has been attempting to rebuild its relationship with Turkey.
Last Friday, government spokesman Stefan Seibert distanced himself publicly from the Armenia resolution, stating that it was merely a declaration of intent by the Bundestag and “not legally binding.” On the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) then met separately with Erdogan. At the same time, foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) held talks with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu.
At the beginning of the week, a spokesman for the German foreign ministry declared it would be “a good and correct step” if the next visit to Incirlik planned by German deputies in early October could take place. Çavuşoğlu said of the procedure to Die Welt, “If Germany continues to behave as now, then we will consider it.” But he added threateningly, “If Germany tries to treat Turkey badly then that won’t be the case.”
A further dispute emerged on the following day. According to Deutsche Welle, an interview it had conducted with Turkish sports minister Akif Çağatay Kılıç had been confiscated by his ministry. Kılıç merely claimed that he had not authorised it. According to the foreign ministry, German ambassador Martin Erdmann held “constructive” telephone discussions with the sports ministry.
On Thursday, the German government then announced Turkey had agreed to the visit of the deputies from the parliamentary defence committee to Incirlik. A note to that effect had been received by the Turkish foreign ministry. Steinmeier welcomed Ankara’s decision and added that now they had come “a bit” further. Behind the difficult attempts of the government to draw closer to Turkey, which are not supported unanimously within its own ranks, are a large number of strategic goals.
Firstly, notwithstanding the supply of weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga, Germany views Turkey as its most important ally in the Middle East to enforce its imperialist interests—with increased independence from the US if necessary. Spiegel Online wrote that the expansion of Incirlik was “from the perspective of the military … urgently required.” Since the beginning of the German intervention, the air force had “parked their jets on US airfields, kept them overnight in temporary buildings and relied on allies for technical support during their reconnaissance flights.”
Another maxim of German foreign policy is the sealing off of Europe’s borders to refugees fleeing the war zones in the Middle East. This had “only been sustainably achieved with the EU-Turkey agreement,” stated Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) on Tuesday in parliament. “While last August there were 100,000 people counted for the month, this August we had around 18,000.” This “reduction of 80 percent in one year” was an “achievement that some would not have expected within a year.”
German imperialism intends to be present and fully involved in the division of the spoils when the regime change operation in Syria being sought by the Western powers is achieved.
On Wednesday, a German delegation participated in the “Syria Conference” in London organised by the “High Negotiations Commission.” Çavuşoğlu stated there that to defeat ISIS a ground offensive against the city of Raqqa was required. However, Turkey would not be able to carry this out alone. “The security forces, including the military and intelligence forces, must comprehensively plan this operation. The planning and strategy of this operation must be well thought through and results orientated,” stated Çavuşoğlu.
The HNC, an opposition group mainly financed by Saudi Arabia which supports armed Islamists in Syria and has long called for the overthrow of the Russian-aligned Assad regime, left no doubt about what it understood by “well thought out” and “results orientated.” The head of the HNC, Riad Hijab, presented a paper for a “transition process,” i.e., the installation of a pro-Western puppet regime in Damascus.
Before Hijab switched to the opposition in August 2012, he was Syrian prime minister and a high-ranking official in Assad’s Baath Party. The German government has maintained close ties to him for some time. Two meetings between Steinmeier and Hijab have already taken place this year, in January and May.
A decisive role in organising the Syrian opposition in Berlin has been played from the outset by the Left Party. Already on November 15, 2013, the party’s foreign policy spokesman, Wolfgang Gehrcke, participated in a “background discussion” organised by the Körber Foundation with Hijab.

Wells Fargo bank fined for account and credit card fraud

Nick Beams

Wells Fargo, the world’s most valuable retail bank, has agreed to pay $185 million in fines after the exposure of schemes that defrauded customers in line with a business model, organised from the highest levels of the company, to boost its profits and growth.
According to the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the bank opened 1.5 million deposit accounts and more than half a million credit card accounts without customers’ authorisation. Bank employees moved funds from customers’ accounts into newly-created accounts without their knowledge or consent.
The CFPB said this practice was “widespread” and resulted in customers being charged for insufficient funds or overdraft fees because required amounts were not in their accounts. The bank also created more than 565,000 credit card accounts, of which some 14,000 incurred more than $400,000 in fees and interest charges.
The bank is attempting to lay the blame on “rogue employees” and revealed that since 2011 it had sacked 5,300 staff. But the fraud operation resulted from a strategy imposed from the top.
Moreover, it beggars belief that a company supposedly operating with tight internal controls and regulations did not know about the creation of more than two million fake accounts.
Under chief executive John Stumpf, the bank’s business model was to sell additional products to customers who held a current account with it. This was a core element of the strategy that helped increase the bank’s market capitalisation to $250 billion. Its biggest shareholder is Berkshire Hathaway, the investment firm run by Warren Buffet.
In a statement on the fraud, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office said the unauthorised accounts were funded with money from customers’ existing accounts to “satisfy goals and earn financial rewards under the banks’ incentive-compensation program.”
There was direct pressure on employees to engage in the practice. According to a statement by Kahlid Taha, a former employee: “When I worked at Wells Fargo, I faced the threat of being fired if I didn’t meet their unreasonable sales quota every day.”
Under the $185 million settlement, in which Wells Fargo has neither admitted nor denied the allegations against it, the bank will pay $100 million to the CFPB, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and $50 million to the Los Angeles City Attorney.
There are two crucial aspects to the agreement and the fine. First, as David Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and former director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told CNN: “It sounds like a big number, but for a bank the size of Wells Fargo, it isn’t really.”
Second, the fine is written off the profit and loss account of the bank. There is no penalty imposed on the senior executives and top management, whose business strategies and demands on employees created the conditions for the fraud to take place.
In a memo to employees issued on Thursday, the bank said: “At Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility for it.”
However, the exposure of the fraud did not come from Wells Fargo but from actions initiated by the Los Angeles City Attorney over unauthorised accounts in May 2015.
As for being “open,” in recent regulatory filings the bank did not disclose that it was under investigation.
“Each quarter we consider all available relevant and appropriate facts and circumstances in determining whether a litigation matter is material and disclosed in our public filings,” Wells Fargo spokeswoman Mary Eshet said in an email. “Based upon that review, we determined that the matter was not material.”
Upon release of the fraud charges, leading Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has sought to elevate herself into national prominence with denunciations of the big banks, and had a major hand in creating the CFPB, stepped forward to cover up the implications of the fraud.
Thanks to the CFPB, she said, customers were getting their money and the “bank is paying a record-breaking fine that will cause the next bank to think again before engaging in this kind of misconduct. The consumer agency continues to deliver for working families.”
In fact, the very opposite conclusion must be drawn. The 2011 Senate report into the circumstances of the 2008 meltdown disclosed the criminal activities of major banks. But in view of the fact that no one was tried, let alone jailed, and any fines that were imposed came out of corporate cash flows, such activity has continued.

ECB keeps monetary policy on hold as tensions grow

Nick Beams

The European Central Bank (ECB) has kept its interest rate and quantitative easing policy on hold at the meeting of its governing council held in Frankfurt on Thursday. This was widely interpreted as a sign that it did not see any immediate rise in risks as a result of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (EU).
This week the level of bond purchases by the ECB passed the €1 trillion mark, under a program announced last year. In the lead-up to the meeting there had been conjecture that the bank would announce an extension of the program beyond the present cut-off date of March 2017 and widen it because the supply of bonds it is able to buy is drying up.
In his press conference, ECB president Mario Draghi instead maintained his standard response that the asset purchasing program “is intended to run until the end of March 2017, or beyond if necessary, and in any case until the governing council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim.”
Lifting the inflation rate is a central ECB objective because it eases the debt burden on banks and other financial institutions.
Keeping the present base interest rate at its present level of minus 0.4 percent, Draghi said he expected interest rates to remain “at present or lower rates for an extended period of time” and well beyond the ending of the asset purchasing program.
Draghi said the available evidence so far suggested “resilience of the euro area economy” in the face of continued global economic and policy uncertainty, but that the outlook was subject to “downside risks.”
In reality, the data provided by the ECB itself, as well as other information, indicate that the bank’s policies—negative interest rates and asset purchases of government and corporate bonds—are having little or no impact in achieving its stated aims of lifting inflation to around 2 percent and boosting economic growth.
According to the latest estimate from Eurostat, the annual inflation rate for August was just 0.2 percent, unchanged from the level in July. This indicates that the ECB has little chance of meeting its target in the foreseeable future.
Data from other sources show the situation is getting worse. The percentage of goods and services prices rising at less than 1 percent has risen to 58 percent, higher than when the ECB started its asset purchasing program last year. In Italy, which is experiencing virtually no growth, the figure is 67 percent.
Economic growth likewise shows no sign of improvement. While the ECB revised its estimate for growth in 2016 slightly upwards to 1.7 percent for 2016, it revised down its estimates for the following two years.
The ECB’s decision not to change its existing policy sparked concern in sections of the financial press. The economics commentator for the British Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, noted that large areas of the euro zone were slipping “deeper into a deflationary trap,” despite negative rates and €1 trillion worth of quantitative easing “leaving the currency bloc with no safety buffer when the next global recession hits.”
Evans-Pritchard warned: “The ECB is close to exhausting its ammunition and appears increasingly powerless to do more under the legal constraints of its mandate.”
The chief obstacle to extending the quantitative easing measures is opposition from Germany, led by its finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, and backed by leaders of the country’s major banks who claim that the low interest rate regime is destroying their business model.
In an editorial comment on the decision, the Financial Times pointed to the tensions within the ECB. It said the meeting of the governing council was notable not so much for what it did not do, but for what it did not say. While the decision to keep the policy on hold was reasonable for now, “Draghi’s inability to expand on what action to take if further stimulus is needed in the coming months is worrying.”
The extension of quantitative easing would involve reducing the current restrictions on what assets the bank can purchase, as it is running out of bonds to buy within the current guidelines. The FT noted that such relaxation would meet with “strong political opposition,” particularly from Germany, because rule changes could expose the ECB to losses or “skew purchase towards the bonds of the most indebted countries.”
The FT wrote that while Draghi “clearly would like to have said more,” he confined himself to saying that there was no question of the “ECB’s will, capacity and ability to act.” It warned: “Such assertions may serve the immediate need, but they will not be tenable for long unless the ECB is also able to spell out what its next step would be.” The editorial declared the “rearguard action” being fought by Germany against Draghi was “deeply misguided.”
Some of the tensions came to the surface during the question-and-answer session of the press conference. In his opening remarks, Draghi said governments had to take action to raise productivity and improve the business environment, in part through launching infrastructure projects to increase investment and boost job creation.
In answer to a question on this issue, he cited the September 5 communique from the G20 summit which pointed to the importance of fiscal strategies to improve growth, emphasising in an answer to a later question that this was a statement not of central bankers but of governments and finance ministers—a thinly-veiled jibe at Germany.
Draghi was more explicit after being was asked if he was referring to Germany when he had said some countries have margins (a reference to budget and balance of trade surpluses) to make investments. “Countries that have that fiscal space should use it,” he said. “Germany has fiscal space.”
In conditions where the ECB’s own figures indicate that no major increase in economic growth is on the horizon and deflationary pressures continue, the tensions within the ECB are set to increase in the coming period.

8 Sept 2016

The Sick Ocean

Robert Hunziker

A major new scientific report, “Explaining Ocean Warming” was released on September 5th. It is grim. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, the findings are based upon peer-reviewed research compiled by 80 scientists from 12 countries. It is the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on the subject of warming of the ocean.
Significantly, the ocean has absorbed more than 90% of “enhanced heating from climate change since the 1970s.” In other words, the ocean has been “shielding us” from the extensive affects of global warming. And, the consequences for the ocean are “absolutely massive.”
The “seasons in the ocean” are actually changing as a result.
“The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend,” D. Laffoley, et al, ed. Explaining Ocean Warming, IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme, Sept. 2016.
“A useful analysis undertaken by the Grantham Institute in 2015 concluded that if the same amount of heat that has gone into the top 2000m of the ocean between 1955-2010 had gone into the lower 10km of the atmosphere, then the Earth would have seen a warming of 36°C.”
In other words, humanity would be toast.
Here’s one of many dangerous “hooks” mentioned in the report: “Crucially, as evident in the past two years, the heat and CO2 accumulated in the ocean are not permanently locked away, but can be released back into the atmosphere when the ocean surface is anomalously warm, giving a positive rapid feed-back to global warming,” which would entail a decidedly harsh blow to life on the planet.
The 500-page report is all-inclusive with several subsections dealing with individual oceanic issues. Yet, a general overview of the “chain of impacts” is perhaps most relevant to an understanding of the dire consequences of failure to act by halting CO2 fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible.
The “chain of impacts” clearly demonstrates the linear interrelated behavior of ocean warming, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise. Due to a domino effect of one problem cascading into others, key human sectors are now threatened, e.g. fisheries, aquaculture, coastal risks management, general health, and coast tourism.
In point of fact, scientific studies show rapid deterioration throughout the “change of impacts” statement such that an all-out alarm is necessitated. In short, the ole public clarion bells need to start ringing hard and loud because “the impacts on key marine and coastal organisms, ecosystems and ecosystem services are already detectable from high to low latitudes transcending the traditional North/South divide.”
In other words, the entire world oceanic ecosystem is already showing signs of severe stress or oceanic sickness.
Furthermore, the latency affect of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming means the impact of today’s carbon emissions shows up years and years down the line such that, assuming carbon emissions drop to zero tomorrow, global warming continues cruising along for many years to come.
All-important, the ocean is a “climate integrator” that regulates the entire planetary biosphere by absorbing 26% of human-caused CO2 and 93% of additional planetary heat. “Without the ocean, present climate change would thus be far more intense and challenging for human life.”
Meanwhile, the regulating function of the ocean comes with heavy costs, for example, ocean acidification and availability of carbonate ions are disrupted, which are building blocks for marine plants and animals to make skeletons, shells, etc.
This acidification impact is already a factor at the base of the food chain, as tiny pea-sized pteropods, which serve as food stock for everything from krill to salmon to whales, show ultra-thinning of their protective shells necessary for both reproduction and maturation, a problem especially found in the Southern Ocean. This early stage risk to disruption of the food chain is caused by excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed into the ocean emitted by fossil fuels.
Astonishingly, sea level rise, the most noticeable oceanic impact, has already dramatically increased its rate of increase over the 1901-2010 period as the rate of rise from 1993-2010 accelerated by an astounding 88%. This sea level rise is already felt in cities like Miami where streets are being raised and additional pumping systems installed (Miami Beach is Raising Streets by 2 Feet to Combat Rising Seas, miamibeachrealtor displays a photo of newly raised streets).
Assuming business-as-usual anthropogenic climate change, sources of dietary protein and income for tens of millions of people will likely be severely impacted by mass mortalities. Wherefore, the ole clarion bell needs to ring even louder, waking up citizens to the threat of impending serious food shortages. Fisheries and aquaculture, which are both key for survival for millions, are already at high risk.
Meanwhile, and unfortunately, climate change contemporaneously continues to negatively affect land agriculture, which will likely exacerbate food shortages with the ocean simultaneously stressed. In all, ocean warming is synergistic with other human-induced stresses such as over-exploitation, like drift net fishing, and habitat destruction, e.g., bleached coral, and chemical pollution, for example, Ag runoff.
The report has suggested solutions to ocean stress, as for example: (1) mitigating CO2 emissions by getting off fossil fuels is number no. 1 on the hit list, followed by (2) protecting marine and coastal ecosystems by governmental regulation of “protected areas” and (3) repairing damaged ecosystems with, for example, coral farming, and (4) adapting economic diversification zones and activities.
Importantly, the landmark study emphasizes the fact that “unequivocal scientific evidence shows that impacts on key marine and coastal organisms, ecosystems, and services are already detectable and that high to very high risks of impact are to be expected,” Ibid, page 53.
That statement is as straightforward, pulling no punches, as scientific papers ever get. The evidence is crystal clear that climate change is disrupting the ocean, which is the only ocean we’ve got.
There are no backups.
Here’s hoping Mr. Trump reassesses his “global warming is a hoax” statement. After all, he has a big audience.

A Good Beginning: Toward the End of US Empire

Kathy Kelly

It seems that some who have the ears of U.S. elite decision-makers are at least shifting away from wishing to provoke wars with Russia and China.
In recent articles, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Thomas Graham, two architects of the U.S. cold war with Russia, have acknowledged that the era of uncontested U.S. global imperialism is coming to an end. Both analysts urge more cooperation with Russia and China to achieve traditional, still imperial, U.S. aims. Mr. Graham recommends a shifting mix of competition and cooperation, aiming toward a “confident management of ambiguity.” Mr. Brzezinski calls for deputizing other countries, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran to carry out the combined aims of the U.S., Russia and China so that this triumvirate could control other people’s land and resources.
It’s surely worthwhile to wonder what effect opinions such as Brzezinski’s and Graham’s might have upon how U.S. resources are allotted, whether to meet human needs or to further enlarge the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and further enrich the corporations that profit from U.S. investments in weapons technology.
If the U.S. might diminish offensive war preparations against Russia, when would DOD budget proposals begin to reflect this? As of April 15, 2016, the U.S. DOD was proposing that the U.S. Fiscal Year 2017 budget significantly increase funding for the “European Reassurance Initiative” (ERI) from $789.3 million the previous year to $3.4 billion. The document reads: “the expanded focus is a reflection of the United States’ strong and balanced approach to Russia in the wake of its aggression in Eastern Europe.” The requested funds will enable the U.S. “defense” establishment to expand purchases of ammunition, fuel, equipment, and combat vehicles. It will also enable the DOD to allocate money to airfields, training centers, and ranges, as well as finance at least “28 joint and multi-national exercises which annually train more than 18,000 U.S. personnel alongside 45,000 NATO Allies.” This is good news for major “defense” contractors.
In the past year, the National Guard of my home state of Illinois has participated in the DOD reserve component. 22 U.S. states matched up with 21 European countries to practice maneuvers designed to build up the ERI. The IL National Guard and the Polish Air Force have acquired “Joint Terminal Attack Controller” systems that enable them to practice coordinating airstrikes with Poland in support of ground forces combatting enemies in the region. Members of the IL National Guard were part of NATO’s July 2016 “Anakonda” exercises on the Russian border. As the state of Illinois spent an entire year without a budget for social services or higher education, millions of dollars were directed toward joint military maneuvers with Poland that ratcheted up tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
Many families in Illinois can relate to the impact of rising food prices in Russia while family income stays the same or decreases. People in both the U.S. and Russia would benefit from diversion of funds away from billion dollar weapons systems toward the creation of jobs and infrastructure that improve the lives of ordinary people.
But people are bombarded with war propaganda. Consider a recent piece of propaganda-lite, just under 5 minutes, which aired on ABC news, showing Martha Raddatz in the back seat of an F-15 U.S. fighter jet, flying over Estonia. “That was awesome,” Raddatz coos, as she witnesses war-games from the F-15’s open cockpit. She calls the American show of force a critical deterrent to Russian forces. The piece neglects to mention ordinary Russians on whose borders, in June 2016, 10 days of U.S. / NATO military exercises involving 31,000 troops took place.
In the high plateaus of Afghanistan, peasant women provide a striking example of risk-taking in order to literally plant new seeds. The New York Times recently reported on women in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan province who have formed unions, risking ridicule and possible physical abuse to form cooperative groups. These women help one another acquire seeds for vegetables other than potatoes and also for new varieties of potatoes. They manage to feed their families and to pool resources so that they can spend less on delivering their crops to the market.
These women are acting with clarity and bravery, creating a new world within the shell of the old. We should be guided by such clarity as we insist that lasting peace can’t be founded on military power.
The end of U.S. empire would be a welcome end. I hope that policy makers will let themselves be guided by sanity and the courage to clarify the U.S.’ vast potential to make a positive difference in our world by asking themselves a simple, indispensable question: how can we learn to live together without killing one another? An indispensable follow-up is: When do we start?

Is Israel Pushing For A Palestinian Civil War?

Ramzy Baroud


Division within Palestinian society has reached unprecedented levels, becoming a major hurdle on the path of any unified strategy to end Israel’s violent occupation or to rally Palestinians behind a single objective.
Newly-appointed Israeli ultra-nationalist, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, understands this too well. His tactic since his ascension to office last May is centered on investing more in these divisions as a way to break down Palestinian society even further.
Lieberman is an ‘extremist’, even if compared with the low standards of the Israeli military. His past legacy was rife with violent and racist declarations. His more recent exploits include taking on the late Mahmoud Darwish, Palestine’s most celebrated poet. He went as far as comparing Darwish’s poetry – which advocates the freedom of his people – to Adolph Hitler’s autobiography, ‘Mein Kampf’.
But, of course, this is not Lieberman’s most outrageous statement.
Lieberman’s past provocations are plenty. Fairly recently, in 2015, he threatened to behead with an axe Palestinian citizens of Israel if they are not fully loyal to the ‘Jewish state’, advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens of Israel, and made a death ultimatum to former Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya.
Outrageous statements aside, Lieberman’s latest ploy, however, is the most outlandish yet. Israel’s Defense Minister is planning to color-code Palestinian communities in the Occupied West Bank, dividing them into green and red, where green is ‘good’ and red is ‘bad’; accordingly, the former shall be rewarded for their good behavior, while the latter collectively punished, even if just one member of that community dares to resist the Israeli Occupation Army.
A version of this plan was attempted nearly 40 years ago, but utterly failed. The fact that such appalling thinking is occurring well into the 21st century without being accompanied by international uproar is baffling.
subscription2016
Lieberman’s color-codes will be accompanied by a campaign to resurrect the ‘Village Leagues’, another failed Israeli experiment to impose an ‘alternative’ Palestinian leadership by ‘engaging’ Palestinian ‘notables’, not democratically-elected leaders.
Lieberman’s solution is to manufacture a leadership, which, like the Village Leagues of the 1970s and 80s, will, most certainly, be regarded as collaborators and traitors by the wider Palestinian society.
But what is the ‘Village Leagues’ exactly and will it work this time around?
In October 1978, elected Palestinian mayors, joined by town councilors and various nationalist institutions, began a campaign of mass mobilization under the umbrella of the National Leadership Committee, whose main objective was to challenge the Camp David Treaty – signed between Egypt and Israel – and its political consequences of marginalizing Palestinians. 
At the time, the Movement was the most elaborate and united network of Palestinians ever assembled in the Occupied Territories. Israel immediately cracked down on the mayors, union leaders and nationalists of various professional institutions.
The national response was insisting on the unity of Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, among Christians and Muslims, and Palestinians at home and in ‘shattat’, or Diaspora.
The Israeli response was equally firm. Starting July 2, 1980, an assassination campaign against the democratically-elected mayors ensued.
Yet, Camp David and the attempts to eliminate the nationalist leaders in the Occupied Territories, and the increased violence of Jewish extremists in the West Bank inspired mass protests, general strikes and violent confrontations between Palestinian youth and Israeli forces.
The Israeli government moved to dismiss elected West Bank mayors, shortly after it established, in November 1981, a ‘Civilian Administration’ to rule the Occupied Territories directly through its military.  The military administration was aimed at sidelining any truly representative Palestinian leadership, and further cementing the Occupation. Once more, Palestinians responded with a general strike and mass mobilization.
Israel has always vied to construct an alternative leadership for Palestinians. These efforts culminated in 1978, when it established the ‘Village Leagues’, giving its members relatively wide powers, including approving or denying developmental projects in the Occupied Territories. They were armed and also provided with Israeli military protection.
But that, too, was doomed to fail as the League members were widely regarded as collaborators by Palestinian communities.
A few years later, Israel recognized the artificial nature of its creation, and that Palestinians could not be mobilized to embrace Israel’s vision of permanent military occupation and superficial autonomy.
In March 1984, the Israeli government decided to dissolve the ‘Village Leagues’.
Not that Lieberman is an astute student of history, but what does he hope to achieve from this stratagem, anyway?
The 1976 municipal elections galvanized Palestinians’ energies to achieve unity; they rallied around common ideas and found a unifying platform in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Now, Palestinian discord is unmistakable. Fatah and Hamas’ protracted fight has fundamentally altered the nationalist discourse on Palestine, turning it into a form of political tribalism.
The West Bank and Gaza are divided, not only geographically but geopolitically as well.  Fatah, which is already embattled in more ways than one, is falling into further divisions among supporters of its current aging leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the shunned, albeit ubiquitous Mohammed Dahlan.
More dangerous than all of this is that Israel’s system of punishment or rewards have effectively turned Palestinians into classes: extremely poor ones, living in Gaza and Area C in the West Bank, and relatively prosperous ones, most of them affiliated with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
From Lieberman’s viewpoint, the opportunity must be ripe for refining and re-imposing the ‘Village Leagues’. Whether it works in its original form or fails, it makes no difference, since the idea is to engender further division amongst Palestinians, sow social chaos, political conflict and, perhaps, duplicate Gaza’s brief civil war in the summer of 2007.
The international community should totally reject such archaic plans and destructive thinking and force Israel to adhere to international law, human rights and respect the democratic choices of the Palestinian people.
Those powers that have imposed themselves as ‘peace brokers’ and guardians of international law must understand that Israel is well-qualified to start fires, but almost never capable of putting them down. And Lieberman, of all people – the Russian club bouncer-turned politician-turned Defense Minister – must not be given free rein to color-code Palestinian communities, reward and punish as he pleases.
A quick look back at history tells us that Lieberman’s tactics will fail; the question is, however, at what cost?

Whether Sauds, In Effect, Own The U.S. Government

Eric Zuesse


A bill is expected to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate on Friday September 9th that could enable Saudis to be prosecuted for financing the 9/11 attacks, but the Saudi royal family are pouring millions into buying key members of Congress to block the vote. On 17 March of this year, the Sauds set up in Washington a PR operation to persuade members of Congress to block it. Furthermore, as International Business Times also reported about that matter, “In October, the Saudi government signed a contract to be represented by the Podesta Group, a lobbying firm run by Clinton campaign fundraiser Tony Podesta.” What happens this Friday could culminate these efforts by the family that owns Saudi Arabia, to, essentially, lock-in their U.S. immunity.
As has now been established by overwhelming evidence, the Saudi royal family paid, and oversaw the positioning in the U.S., of some if not all of the 9/11 jihadists. (That article links through to all of the key evidence on this.) For fifteen years, 9/11 families have sought to remove the Sauds’ immunity from prosecution, which George W. Bush and Barack Obama insisted upon continuing. On 17 May 2016, a bill to allow this matter into U.S. courts passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, despite a threat by the Sauds to bring down the U.S. economy if this bill becomes law.
The Republican head of the U.S. House, Republican Paul Ryan, has been trying to find a way to block the matter from coming to a vote. His Republican colleague Representative Peter King of New York is trying to force Ryan to bring it to a vote. As stated by Politico on September 7th, King says that Ryan:
“has told him that he’d back the bill if Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) supports it. Goodlatte’s aides wouldn’t comment on the issue, but King said the Virginia Republican informed him multiple times that he supports the measure. ‘Ryan said so long as Goodlatte approves it, he would approve it. And I spoke to Goodlatte, and [Goodlatte] said he approves it and supports it,’ King told POLITICO. ‘There is no reason now for it not to come to a vote. The House Judiciary Committee chairman supports it. It should be over and done. Cut and dry.’ King added: “There is no reason for delay.”
The reason why 100% of U.S. Senators had voted for the legislation wasn’t that all Senators want it to pass; for many Senators the purpose was instead to hand this hot potato on to the House and then (if they pass it) on to the President (Obama, who promises to veto it), so as to drag this matter out until after the November 8th elections, after which time they’ll all be freed-up for enough of them to vote for the Sauds on it so as to kill this bill.
Right now, it’s just a postponing-action in Congress.
On September 5th, two officials of the George W. Bush Administration, John Bolton and Michael Mukasey, headlined an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, “The Folly of Fighting Terrorism by Lawsuit: The House should kill a dangerous bill that would lift sovereign immunity in some terror cases”. They said that this matter should not be determined by judges in courts, but by the Congress’s power to declare war and the President’s power to serve as the Commander-in-Chief (the same approach that has preserved the existing immunity from prosecution). They said: “To invite unelected, life-tenured judges to interfere in areas constitutionally assigned to the branches charged with making and declaring war is folly.”
Here is how Britain’s Daily Mail put this matter on 19 May this year: Saudi Arabia’s “Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy.”
Buying U.S. Presidents and members of Congress will cost them far less.
Jimmy Carter has said that in today’s United States:
Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. 
A dollar paid by a member of the Saudi royal family (or any other foreigner) smells just as sweet to a U.S. Government official as does a dollar paid by an American, especially in the current era of untraceable offshore accounts. And that’s also the reason why Congress is planning to vote on Obama’s unpopular TPP treaty after the election.

Global Enclosures In The Service Of Empire

David Bollier


In September 2010, a group of NATO brass, security analysts and other policy elites held a conference called “Protecting the Global Commons.” Attendees were described as “senior representatives from the EU institutions and NATO, with national government officials, industry, the international and specialised media, think-tanks, academia and NGOs” – surely one of the oddest group of “commoners” ever assembled.
The event, hosted by a Brussels-based think tank called Security & Defence Agenda, had its own ideas about what the commons is. Let’s just say it doesn’t regard the commons as a self-organized system designed by commoners themselves to serve their own needs. No. To NATO decision makers, the “global commons” consists of those empty spaces and resources that lie beyond the direct and exclusive control of nation-states. In other words: NATO sees these spaces as no-man’s land without governance. To NATO, the key “global commons” are outer space, the oceans and the Internet. The problems posed by these “commons,” conference organizers suggest, is that they must somehow be dominated by NATO countries lest hostile countries, rogue states and pirates interfere with US and European commercial and military activities. Hence the need for NATO’s military supervision.
subscription2016
A bit of accuracy is in order: Outer space, the oceans and the Internet are common-pool resources.They don’t belong to anybody individually nor to any state individually. But they are not commons.Commonsrequire the active participation of the people in formulating and enforcing the rules that govern them. Or “the consent of the governed,” as the US Declaration of Independence puts it. That’s not really a NATO priority. Instead, as the conference program put it:
What are the political, policy, and operational challenges faced by NATO in the Global Commons? Is the Alliance adequately prepared to execute its responsibilities in a world where the space, maritime, and cyber domains are increasingly vital to the interests of member states and to the day to day peacetime and wartime operations of the Alliance? What capabilities and responsibilities will the Alliance need to develop to sustain its relevance in a world where the global commons are increasingly important?
In a sense, NATO gets it right: space, the oceans and the Internet must be available to all. They are, in its words, the “vital connective tissue in a globalized world.” However, the question that didn’t seem to get asked at the conference, at least according to its stated agenda and available documentation, is: How shall ordinary citizens and their representatives participate in these deliberations and make sure that governance will serve their interests? That, after all, is what a democratic society is all about.
NATO misconstrues the meaning of the term “commons” by casting it as an ungoverned free-for-all – precisely the error that biologist Garrett Hardin made in his famous 1968 essay on the “tragedy of the commons.” Hardin’s error poisoned the meaning of the commons for at least a generation, something that NATO may in fact be eager to perpetuate; defining oceans, space and the Internet as “commons” in Hardin’s sense of the term, would give it license for dominating these resources. Geopolitical supremacy is the goal. As the program notes put it, “Oceans today are as much a chess board for strategists as a global common. What are the key dynamics of today’s maritime domain? What are those of tomorrow? What are the implications for the Alliance?”
NATO’s misuse of “commons” is starting to get some traction. In 2011, MIT political scientists Sameer Lalwani and Joshua Shifrinson held a Washington policy briefing at the New America Foundation that proposed that the US “pare back its forward-based naval presence in many regions while retaining ‘command of the commons.’ It can accomplish this by relying more on regional powers to help in securing the freedom of the seas while maintaining sufficient over-the-horizon naval power to serve as the security guarantor of last resort.”
Has no one at the Pentagon, NATO or defense think-tanks read Elinor Ostrom’s work? Please, NATO: Simply refrain from using the word “commons.” Alternatively, why not begin to imagine new types of global commons institutions that could transcend the parochial, self-serving interests of national governments and their concern for commercial interests over ecological or civic interests? Why not build some creative new transnational governance structures that could truly represent the commoners?
This will not be the last time that commercial or governmental interests attempt to co-opt the term “commons.” Which is all the more reason why we need to point out Hardin’s error yet again, insist upon the real meaning of the commons, and get institutions like NATO to talk to some real, live commoners every once in a while.